Thomasphoto60 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 4121 posts, RR: 25
Reply 18, posted (13 years 10 months 2 weeks ago) and read 1815 times:
I don't know about that Dazed.
I am inclined to agree with post saying that the tumbnails have been improved. For instance, I have a shot of a CO 757 landing, while the shot is excellent in as far as the image quality is concerned, but the thumbnail had always looked, well.....crappy! Now there is a noticiable diffrence with this thumbnail.
PUnmuth@VIE From Austria, joined Aug 2000, 4163 posts, RR: 53
Reply 24, posted (13 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 1761 times:
The thumbnails have changed from GIF to JPG.
See the difference
Speaking for myself i dont see a difference in the thumbnails, but the amount of diskspace saved is a huuuuuge one. The gif is 17526 Bytes in size and the jpg is only 4963 Bytes in size. So lets calculate:
170000 photos in the database. Lets assume around 10000 Bytes are saved when storing the thumbnails as jpg.s. That equals in a saved disk space of about 1.700.000.000 (Read 1,7 Gigabytes).
By the way. Does this mean the gif are going to disappear very soon? I tried to do the same with my latest uploads, but the gif was not available, its only on the system for older uploads.
: Whatever it is, on the main search page (front page of Airliners.net) I can't search for a special airline anymore. Is it that, Johan? (I hope not....
: .... and after a reload, it works again. Thanks, my little computer, for fooling me. Ignore my previous post, folks. Sorry!! Gerardo
: Glenn, Don't you have stuff to do other than hanging out in the forum? ADG
: Definately............. The thumbnails used to be an interlaces gif format......meaning they slowly 'fade in'..... now they are a progressive jpeg. Me
: I thought thumbnails were always JPGs... Maybe images started loading faster due to new compression scripts?
: Download times of the thumbnails are MUCH faster. Now I can modify my normal number of thumbnails per page to 120 without timing out. Quality is bette
: Wow, my thumbnails are looking MUCH better (something like the actual picture now). I had noticed in the past that some people's thumbnails looked qui
: haha me too Charles! I used to have to do it 15 per page on my 56k connection, now i can do alot more at once Thanks alot Johan! Cheers Dan
: How about the advanced search? I don't know how long it has been like this but it is sooooo much easier and a hell of alot better! Cheers Dan
: What's your problem ADG Can't I hang out where I like
: Something's been done with the pics, that's for sure. Downloads are much faster and the pics seem sharper. Sonic99
: Well, that was a bit more difficult than I anticipated. The first really close guess was by Bodobodo who noticed a slight increase in thumbnail qualit
: Johan, The search result pages and new additions pages load up much faster than before (heck this applies to all pages with thumbnails). From what I'
: Thanks Johan! Really great improvement. I have seen just better thumbnails so far! This site is getting better and better everyday! Regards, Henry Jr
: I noticed it cause I'm running the PC at 16bit right now so you can see the borders between the colors in the jpg picture. The old gifs didn't have th
: Look at Examples: Air Canada Thumbnails.. What when the maple leaf used to be a big red blob for some pictures. as I recall. This Jpeg certainly fixed
: Johan, Glad that you have implemented the jpg instead of the gif into the database. However, I have noticed especially with photos showing a lot of bl
: What you mean is not the jpg compression: It's your screen setting. Try 32bit and both pictures will look more or less the same. If you're running at
: As I recall, JPEG only supports up to 24-bit color, so more than that will be overkill (on this site anyway). But you are right Blackened, if you are
: I'm running my system with 16-bit colour and I do notice the difference Saul mentions - it seems only in cases where there is a strong contrast betwee
45 Aer Lingus
: Sorry to be such an ass but I did notice this when checking my own photos: NEW JPEG VERSION OLD GIF VERSION NEW JPEG VERSION OLD GIF VERSION The new f
: Hello, Thank you for your comments. I agree the quality of the JPEG versions of the photos posted by Nscaler and Aer Lingus seem to be of lower than t
: Oh and one more thing. I've tried this with 16bit color and it looks quite bad. JPEG really shines when you use 24bit color or higher. GIF, that is a
: Hi Johan and others, I think the 75 quality is worth the extra file size, because at 37 and 50 you can see too much jpg compression in my opinion. (I
: I also feel that the quality of 75 is worth the extra file size. You are still saving about 50% of the file size as compaired to the GIF. Sunil
50 Aer Lingus
: Johan, I took your advice ans changed my monitor settings. They were at 16 bit and 1024x768 so I changed it to 32 bit and it looked even worse; I was
: There has definitly been a huge improvement switching from the gif to the jpeg thumbnails as i can notice here on my CRT. At the present i am using 12
: I only notice one thing...SPEED!!! The thumbnails load so much faster on my cyber-slug(aka 33.6 modem). Thanks lots Johan. Cullen
: Johan, Over the last few days I've changed screen resolutions, colour depth, downloaded new drivers - essentially did anything to try and witness this
54 Jan Mogren
: I would prefer the jpg's a bit less compressed. /JM